SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 36121

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
K S HEMALEKHA
THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELE) – Appellant
Versus
SMT.SHOBHA K.V. – Respondent
WP 9153/2025



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO.9153 OF 2025 (GM-KEB)

BETWEEN:

1. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELE)

MAJOR WORK DIVISION, K.P.T.C.L, JCR CIRCLE, 3RD CROSS, JCR EXTENSION, CHITRADURGA-577 501.

2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELE)

MAJOR WORK DIVISION, K.P.T.C.L, JCR CIRCLE, 3RD CROSS, JCR EXTENSION, CHITRADURGA-577 501.

…PETITIONERS (BY SRI H.V. DEVARAJU, ADVOCATE)

AND:

Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M SMT. SHOBHA K.V.

Location: HIGH W/O G. DILEEP KUMAR, COURT OF PRESENTLY AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, KARNATAKA RESIDING AT KADABANAKATTE VILLAGE, TURUVANUR HOBLI, CHITRADURGA TALUK AND DISTRICT-577501.

…RESPONDENT (BY SMT. SPOORTHY HEGDE N., ADVOCATE)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR CONNECTED RECORDS RELATING TO ANNEXURE J, DATED 08/11/2024 PASSED IN CIVIL MISC. NO.213/2022 ON THE FILE OF SPECIAL II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, AT CHITRADURGE; AND (A) TO QUASH ANNEXURE J, DATED 08/11/2024 PASSED IN CIVIL MISC.NO.213/2022 ON THE FILE OF SPECIAL II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSION JUDGE AT CHITRADURGA BY ISSUE OF WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT/ORDER OR DIRECTION AND ETC.

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’

GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

ORAL ORDER

The petitioners-Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited (KPTCL) seek to challenge the order dated 08.11.2024 passed by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga (hereinafter referred to as the 'District Court' for short) in Civil Misc.No.213/2022 whereby the Court awarded diminution value compensation in favour of the respondent.

2. Respondent (Land owner) filed Civil Misc.

No.213/2022 under Section 16 (3) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 (‘Telegraph Act’ for short), claiming additional compensation for alleged loss caused due to the installation of 220 KV transmission line / tower over her land bearing Re.Sy.No.644/3 measuring 2 acres 38 guntas out of 3 acres 2 guntas situated at Turuvanur Village, Chitradurga Taluk and District. The ground urged by the respondent in the petition was that the KPTCL erected towers over about 2 acres of her land, destroyed standing crops and trees, reduced the fertility and market value of the land and sought `23,00,000/- for diminishing of the land value.

3. The petitioners (KPTCL) filed objections contending that they have already paid a sum of `1,50,000/- as full and final compensation for the diminution land value as per the Deputy Commissioner's order dated 04.12.2018, and the respondent accepted the compensation without protest, that no crops existed on the land at the time of drawing the line in 2018.

4. The Trial Court partly allowed the miscellaneous petition and awarded additional compensation of `59,670/-

with 8% interest.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners-

KPTCL and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent- claimant.

Petitioners’ contention:

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the full compensation has already been paid towards the diminution in land value as fixed by the Deputy Commissioner for a sum of `1,50,000/-. The compensation has been voluntarily received by the respondent without any objections and the respondent never challenged Ex.R1. Hence, reopening the compensation is impermissible. It is submitted that once the diminution land value was assessed and paid, awarding additional compensation amount towards diminution would amount to duplication. The impugned order has no finding on the Deputy Commissioner's assessment and this amounts to the perversity, which warrants interference by this Court.

Respondent's contention:

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent contends that the respondent is the owner and cultivator of land bearing Re.Sy.No.644/3 measuring 2 acres 38 guntas out of 3 acres 2 guntas, wherein vario

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top